We are anonymous, we are legion

Private sector censors

praskrishna — 2012-04-26T13:30:47Z

If business decides what’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’ speech, it can lead to multiple interpretations and arbitrary decisions. The article by Salil Tripathi was published in LiveMint on April 25, 2012.

In Milan Kundera’s 1967 Czech novel, Žert (The Joke), Ludvik Jahn sends a postcard to an intense classmate who takes herself too seriously. In the card, he makes sarcastic comments against the Communist Party. Unsurprisingly, others don’t see the joke. He gets expelled from the party, conscripted and has to work in mines.

While The Joke was a work of fiction, in the real Soviet era as punishment for such actions, many people lost jobs, sometimes their homes; some went to jail, often betrayed by those they trusted. In Czechoslovakia (as the country was then known), the state ran the postal service and those who read the postcard were party members. In India, the private sector provides Internet access and others don’t have the legal right to see what’s being transmitted, unless they are intended recipients, or if the material is broadcast publicly. The state now wants the private sector to police and censor the Internet.

Under the draconian Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, any intermediary (a search engine, a website, a domain name registry, a service provider, or a cyber café) must take down the “offending” material from its website within 36 hours. The intermediary need not inform the person who posted the material, nor would the creator get the right to respond. As Apar Gupta points out on the Indian Law and Technology Blog, in one recent case, based on these rules, an injunction has been granted.

These rules go significantly beyond the existing restraints on speech. The Constitution limits speech and sections of the criminal code impose further restrictions. To that, add the IT rules’ vaguely defined terms of what can’t be said—content which is “grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever, harms minors in any way, or infringes any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right”. Who decides that? The intermediaries.

These rules make the private sector act like the state. Nobody elected business to play such a role; it does not have the expertise, capacity, legal training, or authority to act as the state. Censorship is bad; whether in state or private hands. If business decides what’s “good” and “bad” speech, it can lead to multiple interpretations and arbitrary decisions, without recourse to appeal. In a country where those who feel offended have often threatened violence, businesses will understandably take the cautious approach and not allow anyone to say anything that’s remotely controversial, even if it is an opinion about a film.

Decisions will be made on opaque criteria. Apple and Amazon have arbitrarily stopped some products from being sold on their electronic stores, citing “community standards”. Amazon stopped providing server space to WikiLeaks, even though no government had asked it to do so. Credit card companies stopped processing donations going to WikiLeaks, without any legal order. Even Google, which has admirably stood up to China’s bullying, has had to take down content when governments have required that it does so through proper legal channels. India’s record is poor: of the 358 complaints India lodged with Google, 255 were about content that was controversial or political, but not illegal.

To demonstrate the reach of the rules, the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore sent random notices to seven companies, asking them to take down content. Of them, six complied beyond what they were called upon to do—instead of the three pages that the centre asked for, one company blocked an entire website. A few legally worded letters were enough to get compliance from companies. The centre’s executive director, Sunil Abraham, told me recently: “Companies which have no interest in free speech are now taking these decisions. They have the power to do so and they are using it without any sense of responsibility.”

Aseem Trivedi knows this well. The cartoonist who ran a website called cartoonistsagainstcorruption.com, found that his site had disappeared after a complaint from an individual that the cartoons violated laws. Since then he has been campaigning for freedom on the Internet. Everyone’s freedom is at stake—whether you want to see cartoons of Sonia Gandhi, Narendra Modi, Ramdev, Kisan Hazare, Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, Sachin Tendulkar, Poonam Pandey and even Mamata Banerjee. And yet look at what happened to Ambikesh Mahapatra, the professor who sent a cartoon mocking Banerjee to some friends via the Internet. He was arrested and later roughed up. These rules chill speech.

Last year, Kapil Sibal, minister for information technology, asked companies to screen content manually and censor the Web. The demand was audacious. It showed lack of understanding of how the Internet works and revealed fundamental ignorance of the state’s role: it has to protect the rights of the one who wishes to express and not the one who claims offence.

In Parliament, P. Rajeev, member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), wants to annul those rules. Everyone should support him.

Read the original in LiveMint here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/private-sector-censors

Non human intelligence is closer than you think!

nishant — 2012-05-24T06:36:57Z

In one of the research projects that I have been involved in, I was recently a part of a jury, for a contest which required on-line voting. It sounded like a fun thing, giving the participants a chance to bring in their inherited networks and also expanding the reach of the contest entries.

Nishant Shah's article was published in FirstPost on April 25, 2012.

We were just about to close shop and announce the clear winners who had a landslide victory in the contest, when following up on a clue – a simple mismatch between the number of people who had visited the webpage and the number of votes polled – sniffed up by a colleague, we were suddenly faced with the suggestion that a lot of the votes cast in the contest were by non-human actors.

The first instincts for many of us involved were that an act of deception or fraud had happened. It felt natural, to most of us that when we asked for votes, we were specifically looking for human votes. Our relationship with technologies – digital or otherwise – has been primarily defined through usage. We use technologies so that we can perform an intended task. Especially with transparent and wearable portable technologies, we constantly think of them as disposable extensions which help execute our ideas and actions with efficiency.

In this one-way functional understanding of technologies, we often forget that these technologies are not merely tools. More often than not, the technologies that we interact with and engage with, shape the ways in which we look at the world. This is true even of the simplest of tools – If you have a hammer in your hand, the whole world appears to be a nail.

Within large-scale digital networks this becomes so much more complicated because the lines between human and non-human actors within those networks are very blurred. Our engagement with the network is not merely to use it as a conduit for communication. The network is an intelligent entity. It grows, learns, watches and responds to our different actions. There are actors within the network which can perform actions which might resemble, if they are not exactly the same, as the human actions in the same environment.

In fact, we are often faced with non-human actors – call them bots, scripts, artificial intelligence, or any other name – which are more efficient in performing certain repetitive and recursive actions which are necessary to sustain the network, that the human actor might be unable to cope with.

Think of your favourite social network and realise that there are so many ways by which the interface and the network, aided by a range of non-human actors, are interacting with you constantly to customise and ease your interactions within the network. Anthropomorphised guides give you tours of new applications. Email based bots notify of activity in your network. Sniffers detect your browser, your ISP, your connectivity speed, your browser, your access device, your preferred language, your customised settings, etc. to render the social network legible on your screen.

We increasingly depend upon these transparent workers, very much like the magical servants in Beast’s enchanted castle in the fairy tale about Beauty and the Beast. If you do a measure of who you interact with the most within a network you will quickly realise that what you actually interact with, within a network, is these non-human actors who facilitate your peer-2-peer connections in the digital domain.

And this is not limited to your social networking systems. As we move towards a more intuitive internet that operates through multiple nodes and forms pervasive and persuasive networks of being, we are increasingly living with non-human actors who can mimic life more efficiently in their native environments. The bots that perform edits on Wikipedia entries to clean the language and correct styles are made out of code.

Scripts that relay information about your usage so that it gets logged, tracked and visually presented in Google Analytics are also bits and bytes. The IVR that you use for your financial transactions or indeed the very systems which authenticate your credit card details, without you worrying about fraud is because it is done without human intervention. It is despite these transactions, or perhaps, because of it, that we refuse to think of technologies as sapient.

We often think of ourselves in technology terms and sometimes also Disnefy our gadgets by giving them names and talking of them as almost-human. However, when it comes to questions of actions or doing things, there is a false presumption that the human proposes and the technological does it, despite the contrary evidence that we generally have the technological dictating terms and us following them through within digital networks.

We resolved our small crisis by counting only the human votes. But that resolution is not one that we will be able to live with for long. We are soon going to enter worlds where the non-human actor in the network is going to have equal rights, agency, will and choices, and it will perform actions that will have equal credibility as the human one. If not more.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/non-human-intelligence

Views | Why the Left may for once be right

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T11:48:50Z

The article by Pramit Bhattacharya was published in LiveMint on April 23, 2012.

India’s information technology (IT) minister, Kapil Sibal appears to be running into rough weather over IT rules framed last year, which curb freedom of expression on the internet. The rules have incensed India’s growing blogging community and piqued at least a few of his fellow parliamentarians.

On the opening day of the upcoming parliamentary session on Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha is set to vote on an annulment motion against the IT rules, moved by P. Rajeeve of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a rediff.com report said. Ironically, the party that still treats Stalin as a hero (quoting him unfailingly in its political resolutions) has become the first to stand up for internet freedom.
Rajeeve is of course not the only parliamentarian to take exception to the rules. Jayant Choudhry, a member of parliament (MP) from the Rashtriya Lok Dal, was the first to draw attention to the draconian rules late last year, and MPs from other regional parties such as the Samajwadi Party and the Asom Gana Parishad criticized the rules in a parliamentary discussion in December.

Two sets of rules, one governing cyber cafes and the other relating to intermediaries have attracted most criticism. The rules relating to intermediaries such as internet service providers, search engines or interactive websites such as Twitter and Facebook are the most disturbing. Intermediaries are required under the current rules to remove content that anyone objects to, within 36 hours of receiving the complaint, without allowing content creators any scope of defence.

The criteria for deciding objectionable content, laid down in the rules, are subjective and vague. For instance, intermediaries are mandated to remove among other things, ‘grossly harmful’ content, whatever that may mean.

This is a unique form of ‘private censorship’ that will endanger almost all online content. In this age of easily offended sensibilities, it is virtually impossible to write anything that does not “offend” anyone. For instance, even this piece may be termed ‘grossly harmful’ to the CPI(M) party.

However far-fetched this may sound, this has already become a reality. A researcher working with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) tried out such a strategy with several different intermediaries, and was successful in six out of seven times, always with frivolous and flawed complaints, Pranesh Prakash of CIS wrote in a January blog-post. It has become much easier in India to ban an e-book than a book, Prakash pointed out.

The rules regulating cyber cafes are no better. Cyber cafes are required to keep a log detailing the identity of users and their internet usage, which has negative implications for privacy and personal safety of users, analysis of the rules by PRS legislative research said.

Internet freedom in India has declined over time and is only ‘partly free’, a 2011 report on internet freedom by US-based think tank, Freedom House said. India has joined a growing club of developing nations where, “internet freedom is increasingly undermined by legal harassment, opaque censorship procedures, or expanding surveillance,” the report noted.

The only saving grace is that some of the IT rules are drafted in a language so arcane that anyone will find it hard to decipher them, leave alone implementing them. Sample this: “The intermediary shall not knowingly deploy or install or modify the technical configuration of computer resource or become party to any such act which may change or has the potential to change the normal course of operation of the computer resource than what it is supposed to perform thereby circumventing any law for the time being in force: provided that the intermediary may develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of securing the computer resource and information contained therein.”

The first task at hand for Sibal may be to explain to fellow lawmakers what the above rule is supposed to mean, before he defends such rules.

Click for the original, Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right

Campaign against curbs on websites gathers steam

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T11:19:29Z

For political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and his blogger-cum-journalist friend Alok Dixit, who both ran a website against corruption, a tryst with the blind side of law triggered their mission against “gagging” of the new-age Indian Internet user.

The blog post by Arpan Daniel Varghese was published by IBN Live on April 23, 2012.

It all started when they were in Mumbai, taking part in the first public protest seeking a strong Lokpal led by social activist Anna Hazare. “During the course of the protest, we got word that our website had been taken off,” recalls Alok.

The Mumbai Police had banned the website without any prior notice, apparently after a complaint was filed by a Congress leader that some content on the site, CartoonsAgainstCorruption, was objectionable, he says.

“We then contacted Bigrocks, the domain provider, but they did not divulge the exact procedure to restore our website,” he adds.

Kerala High Court lawyer P Jacob, who has a masters in cyber law and is a researcher in the field, clarifies. “Let’s say that you are a website, blog or domain owner... As per the intermediary rules incorporated into the IT laws, introduced through an amendment in 2011, if a third person sends a complaint, be it a frivolous one, to you (the intermediary ) about some objectionable content, you will have to take off the said content within 36 hours.”

This could happen to any one and could be quite dangerous, points out Sunil Abraham, the executive director of The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS-India).� “If a company wants to target your organization’s social media network, they can keep sending fraudulent emails to you and you will have to keep deleting it unless you are ready to face litigation or government action. And then there is no penalty for abusing the provision. There is no transparency, the people who comment will not be told,” says Sunil.

It was this realization that drove Alok, who then quit his job as a reporter, and Aseem Trivedi to start a movement against such blind curbs. ‘Save Your Voice’ was thus born.

A research conducted by the CIS gave further credence to their fears that it was very “easy to ban any website in India.”

“We call it a policy sting operation,” details Sunil. “We sent out fraudulent take- down notices (or complaints) to seven of the largest intermediaries in India. They gladly over-complied and promptly took off the material in question. You can try this. You could look at a legitimate comment and complain that this is blasphemous, offensive or plain annoying. And without questioning your locus standi, the intermediary sites will have to take it off.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/campaign-against-curbs-on-websites

Expect anti-net censorship echo in house

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T11:07:43Z

For the anti-Internet censorship movement in the country, hope is now in sight. Their fight against the intermediary provisions (section 79) of the IT laws, according to which, an intermediary (website, domain owner) would have to take off content that a third party (or complainant) finds ‘objectionable,’ without any room for appeal, has now garnered the attention of the government itself. What is at stake is our fundamental rights, warns CPM Member of Parliament P Rajeeve, who was perhaps the first at the government level to realise that there was a gaping hole in the provision, and took up the matter in the Rajya Sabha.

This blog post by Arpan Daniel Varghese was published in IBN Live on April 25, 2012

“A discussion on the annulment of the IT Act 2011 itself is likely to figure in the budget session of the Parliament on April 24. I am trying to mobilise other MPs. We have decided to convene a meeting of organizations, representatives of political parties and MPs to discuss this issue in detail,” says MP Rajeeve.

Noted Twitteratti and former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor too is concerned, particularly about the onus this places on Internet Service Providers.

“If a newspaper publishes something, you go after the newspaper, not the delivery boy. Yes, you can ask the delivery boy to stop delivering the newspaper, but that is such an extreme step that few democracies would contemplate. But what we are trying to do seems to go unacceptably far in this direction and needs further reconsideration,” Tharoor says, adding that he too is planning to raise the issue in the Lok Sabha.

Both Alok Dixit from ‘Save Your Voice’ and Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet And Society (CIS), say they are speaking to MPs and others in the government and trying to initiate an motion in the Rajya Sabha against the intermediary provisions. And support has been pouring in from all quarters, be it cyber space or through the pan-India protests, including the recent one at the Marina Beach in Chennai that ‘Save Your Voice’ has been holding.

Alok, Sunil and scores of activists across the country are now pinning their hopes on the annulment motion introduced by MP Rajeeve, which is likely to be taken up during the second half of the Parliament session on Tuesday.
The main hassle, however, is ignorance. “People don’t even know about the laws. They are not aware of their rights. So, the kind of support we are getting is quite less,” says Alok.

The legal fraternity and the administration too face the same roadblock, agrees Kerala High Court advocate Jacob. “This is a new area and people are just learning the theoretical side of it. There are not many cases. Trained professionals are not there to train the legal fraternity itself,” he rues.

The fundamental question is, according to Sunil, “why should freedom of speech and expression be any different on the Internet?”
“Remember, this is the same Internet which brought out Kolaveri and structured the Anna movement. So, it affects you,” Alok signs off.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/anti-net-censorship-echo-in-house

Mobilising support for freedom on the Web

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T11:02:58Z

A motion in the Rajya Sabha has sought annulment of the IT intermediary guidelines, writes Deepa Kurup in this article published in the Hindu on April 22, 2012.

A research, or a sting operation, conducted by researchers at the Centre for Internet and Society in October 2011 — a few months after the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules were notified — revealed some inherent flaws in the guidelines laid down by the Indian government. The results of the study made news, particularly after Union Minister for IT, Kapil Sibal, asked Internet companies and Web service providers to screen content.

The study revealed that companies were only too eager to comply with take-down notices or requests, in order to avoid further hassles, particularly legal ones.

Rishab Dara, a researcher who was part of this ‘sting', pointed out that unless the content was commercial, or had potential commercial interest, companies preferred to err on the side of caution.

Addressing an audience at a panel discussion, titled ‘Resisting Internet censorship: strategies for furthering freedom of expression in India', held at the Bangalore International Centre, Mr. Dara pointed out that search engines did not invest enough resources to check how valid the claims were, before taking down over 2,000 URLs related to a random complaint or take-down notice sent by them. His study underlined the need for debate and discussion on the intermediary guidelines, locating this in the larger context of freedom on the Web.

The discussion, organised by the Centre for Internet and Society, was moderated by the former journalist and academic, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. The audience and the panel comprised a diverse lot: from students, netizens and academics to those who were directly involved in the business of publishing content or hosting Web content. While a substantial part of the discussion dealt with the legal aspects of the notified rules, and how it may contradict the constitutional rights of citizens, a section of the debate also delved into whether the Web as a medium needed to be policed at all.

If panellist Mahesh Murthy, Chief Executive Officer of Pinstorm, argued vociferously for unfettered freedom on the Web and accused the government of being threatened by movements such as the anti-corruption campaign led by Anna Hazare (which he said was largely mobilised on the Web), another panellist Na. Vijayshankar, Cyber Law College, who claimed he was among those instrumental in bringing down the pornographic cartoon portal Savitabhabhi.com, argued that though these rules need to be withdrawn, there are “boundaries” to what can be posted and said on the Web.

Another section of the audience brought up the issues of hate speech on the Web, and pointed out that in some cases there was a need to pin liability on those who generate content that incites hatred.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Centre for Law and Policy Research, pointed out that currently the way the issue was being played out in court, the discourse was more about companies.

“The debate is not about users today. Companies are trying to duck liabilities, rather than deal with substantive issues of free speech,” he said, pointing to the complexities in locating liability for content.

Speaking from the publisher's perspective, B.G. Mahesh, OneIndia.in, an online news and entertainment portal, spoke of specific cases where his portal had been targeted by the Chennai Cybercrime cell for hosting a news story (syndicated from a news agency) that was declared defamatory. “We took it down, but there was no answer from them when we asked for an explanation,” he said, adding that in such cases there is tremendous pressure and harassment from authorities, leaving publishers with no choice but to comply.

Though the IT intermediary rules were notified in April 2011, the issue made headlines when Union Minister for Information and Communication Technology Kapil Sibal asked private companies or Web service providers to pre-screen content, a statement which he later withdrew.

Also discussed in detail were the complexities posed by a medium like the World Wide Web, and what were the reasonable restrictions to free speech on the Web. Does one need a separate legal dispensation to deal with this medium, Mr. Thakurta asked. While emphasising that the solution does not lie in “knee-jerk reactions”, such as the rules that have been proposed, he pointed out that the bid to control flow of information was a simple manifestation of the utter helplessness and inability of the government — and governments worldwide — to control the Web. Be it in West Bengal, where a professor is held for sharing a cartoon, or with the Union government that beckons corporates to pre-screen the Web, these acts are a manifestation of a “combination of arrogance and stupidity”, he said.

Subsequently, in February, Rajya Sabha member from Kerala, P. Rajeeve, moved a statutory motion in the Rajya Sabha seeking that these guidelines be annulled on the grounds that it allowed intermediaries protection from legal liability in return for trading away freedom of expression of users.

In the Parliamentary session that will start next week, this is likely to come up for discussion, and across the country, rights activists are mobilising support and lobbying with legislators to garner support for this annulment.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/mobilising-support-for-freedom-on-web

MPs to be taught ‘draconian’ IT Act Rules as India.net support galvanises for annul motion

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T10:39:48Z

The blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on April 23, 2012.

Rajya Sabha’s member of parliament (MP) from Kerala, P Rajeeve, whose statutory motion to annul the IT (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 is slated for discussion in Parliament tomorrow, aims to convene a meeting of MPs, internet societies, and bloggers in the first week of May to create awareness against the draconian effect of the rules.

“Most of the MPs need to know about this,” Rajeeve told Legally India, explaining that statutory motions are generally not easy to pass. “Actually we are trying to create awareness by organizing a session. The issue will be the IT Rules 2011 and how it is against the constitution, how it is against natural justice, how it is against due process of law.”

“The motion has been accepted. The committee has allotted time for discussion on the twenty fourth. Thereafter it will come to the house. In this part of the session I am trying to coordinate other MPs to get support”, he said.

Rajeeve’s motion of 23 March 2012, as first reported by CIS-India, was not his first attempt at bringing the IT rules into the spotlight. When the rules were in draft stage, he had made a zero hour mention against them for being in violation of freedom of speech and expression, by over-scrutinising bloggers, over-authorising intermediaries, and letting the government, individuals and institutions by-pass the due process of law.

Rajeeve was one of the nine panelists in the open discussion on “Resisting Internet Censorship”, organised by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and Foundation for Media Professionals, in Bangalore on Saturday, 21 April. The discussion, addressing an audience of 40, was moderated by veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.

Other panelists included Mahesh Murthy, founder of digital marketing website Pinstorm, Sudhir Krishnaswamy, founding member of Centre for Law and Policy Research, Na Vijayashankar, director of Cyber Law College, and Siddharth Narain from the Alternative Law Forum.

Also on the panel were Rishabh Dara, Google policy fellow who conducted a study last year on intermediary liability in India and its chilling effects on free expression, BG Mahesh, founder of Oneindia.com, Ram Bhat, co-founder of community media collective Maraa, and Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at CIS.

Prakash said that the discussion brought together different perspectives, even those of the entrepreneur, like BG Mahesh and Mahesh Murthy. “Transparency in the terms of censorship is good. We are not saying all censorship is bad, but that it should be transparent.”

Prakash told Legally India about the various experiences shared by panelists, of the lack of transparency in the present system of censorship. While one faced harassment by the police over trivial procedural compliances, there was complaint for defamation against an article syndicated by another from a different publication’s press release. “And we read the article over and over and over again but couldn’t find anything which was remotely defamatory.”

Legal experts on the panel, Kirshnaswamy and Vijayashankar, spoke about the constitutionalism behind free speech provisions. Narain shed light on the fact that while excessive energy has been expended on highlighting which content should not be banned, little has been spent on examining the operative procedures behind censorship.

Dara spoke about his research and how it not only revealed that content was being frivolously removed on complaints to intermediaries, but also that the people whose content was being removed were not being informed of the same. There was no public notice of the removal.

Bhat’s discourse drew attention to the history of censorship in India and elicited the fact that the Indian press has in fact been censored in an upsetting manner even since the revolt of 1857.

Murthy made the observation that statistically speaking, in India the number of internet users exceeds television watchers, which has made social media unfathomably important while the internet is no longer elitist.

A number of related Indian initiatives have been gathering momentum in recent months, such as signature campaigns for internet freedom, and offline protests such as the Free Software Movement in Karnataka and the Save your Voice in Delhi, are the order of the day. Other actions include writing to MPs, asking them to vote in favor of Rajeeve’s statutory motion for annulment of the IT rules.

Kerala-based advocate Shojan Jacob filed the first ever writ challenging the rules in the Kerala High Court last month.

The rules enable any individual or public or private institution to get content removed from websites, in most cases simply by notifying the website owners or intermediaries such as Google, Yahoo and others.

Takedown requests can be based on any of 15 vaguely drafted parameters, without stating any reasons or requiring any judicial or quasi-judicial order in support.

Click to read the original.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/draconian-it-rules

India arrests professor over political cartoon

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T10:27:48Z

Sharing funny, satirical cartoons over the Internet can land you in court and even in jail these days in the world’s largest democracy. The article by Rama Lakshmi was published in Washington Post on April 13, 2012.

A chemistry professor, Ambikesh Mahapatra, from the Jadavpur University in the eastern Indian state of West Bengal, forwarded a cheeky cartoon strip to his friends that made fun of the state’s mercurial chief minister Mamata Banerjee. Late Thursday, the professor was beaten up by angry political workers of Banerjee’s party, Trinamool Congress, and later arrested by the state police.

Indian politicians appear to have become very touchy recently. In the past few months, the government clamped down on Web sites and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Google, for carrying defamatory cartoons and morphed images of senior politicians.

Banerjee, who ended a Communist party’s three-decades reign in West Bengal at the elections a year ago, has become the queen of controversies in the past month.

She first wanted the state’s school history textbooks to reduce the number of pages glorifying Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Then, she instructed 2,500 public libraries to buy only newspapers her government approved of.

Banerjee is also a partner in India’s national coalition government. She recently forced her party member Dinesh Trivedi, a national railway minister, to resign because he dared to raise rail passenger fares without consulting her. Mahapatra forwarded a cartoon that made fun of Banerjee sacking Trivedi.

On Friday, the professor’s arrest triggered outrage. Angry students in West Bengal’s capital Kolkata protested by pasting copies of the cartoon all over university walls. One TV commentator said that Banerjee had not only lost her sense of humor but had herself become a laughing stock.

The state’s “new-found aversion to non-believers has gone a bit too far,” said Pranesh Prakash, an Internet freedom activist at the Center for Internet and Society, of the response to the cartoon.

“[Banerjee’s] government wants to decide what people will read in public libraries, and tomorrow she will tell us what we should think,” said Brinda Karat, a lawmaker from the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

West Bengal’s transport minister Madan Mitra said “those who call themselves professors, if they do such ugly things, will never be forgiven.”

The chemistry professor was later released on bail, but not before he was charged with three crimes: humiliating and insulting the modesty of a woman, defamation and sending offensive messages through a computer.

Click to read the original

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-arrests-professor-over-cartoon

Privacy International's Trip to Asia

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T09:58:12Z

In February 2012, the PI team travelled to India, Bangladesh and Hong Kong to meet with our local partners in the region and speak at four conferences they had organized. We also got the chance to interview our partners in India and Bangladesh on the privacy issues facing them at the moment - this video is the result of those conversations.

PI spent the first half of February in Asia, visiting our regional partners and speaking at events. Our trip began in Delhi, where the Centre for Internet and Society (in collaboration with the Society in Action Group) had organized two consecutive privacy conferences – an invite-only conclave on Friday 3rd February and a free symposium open to the public on Saturday 4th February. The conclave consisted of two panels, the first focusing on the relationship between national security and privacy, the second on privacy and the Internet. We were seriously impressed with the calibre of the speakers CIS and SAG had gathered – the panels included a Supreme Court Advocate, a Member of Parliament and the Former Chief of the Research and Analysis Wing (the Indian equivalent of MI-6 and the CIA) – but Gus and Eric held their own!

The All India Privacy Symposium the next day was partly intended as a public showcase of the amazing research Privacy India, CIS and SAG have conducted over the past two years, including consultations in Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Chennai and Mumbai. The event was organized into five panels: Privacy and Transparency, Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives, Privacy and National Security, Privacy and Banking, and Privacy and Health. A few themes recurred throughout the day – perhaps the most prominent being the repeated allegation that the Indian government's technological illiteracy is putting its citizens at risk. One panellist described how an RTI (right to information) request had recently revealed that the government had no idea how many of its own computers had been hacked or how much data had been stolen – even though this information has been in the public domain since the Wikileaks diplomatic cable releases.

On Sunday, our IDRC funder in Delhi very kindly lent us his beautiful house for a PrivAsia strategy meeting. We chatted about how the Indian project had gone thus far, and the sort of activities our partners would like to undertake over the next couple of years. Their main priority at the moment is India's proposed UID (Unique Identification) project, which is riddled with flaws, inconsistencies and logical gaps. The project is also extremely expensive, with estimates ranging from just under $4 billion to $33 billion. Our partners strongly oppose the programme in its current form, and are exploring a number of strategies for fighting it - we'll keep you appraised of their progress...

PI then parted ways – Gus headed to Hong Kong and Eric and I flew to Dhaka to meet up with Simon and Ahmed Swapan of Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (VOICE), our partner in Bangladesh. We spent a day at the VOICE offices, getting extremely jealous of their huge kitchen and the fact that they all sit down to a freshly cooked lunch every day. That evening, Ahmed took us to a book fair, which was much livelier than we were expecting! It was held outside and was packed with people socialising, eating deep-fried crayfish and (occasionally) perusing the books and pamphlets on display. The fair is apparently an annual event and VOICE have had their own stand there for the past few years.

The following day was the National Convention on the Right to Privacy and Data Protection, organized by VOICE and a group of other Bangladeshi NGOs. We were delighted by the turnout - over 80 people showed up to listen and to voice their own opinions - but Ahmed was unsurprised, explaining that privacy was a hot topic in Bangladesh at the moment. Several issues were clearly extremely controversial, and the debate became very heated when it turned to the relationship between privacy and the right to information (recently enshrined in law in the RTI Act 2009). It was amazing to see how passionate people were, and how eager to improve things. The debate was presided over by retired Justice Golam Rabbani, who urged the government to create a national tribunal for the protection of the citizen's right to privacy.

Gus spent a brief 36 hours in Hong Kong but was able to participate in a symposium run by our partners at Hong Kong University's Faculty of Law. The participants at the symposium included the Privacy Commissioner of Hong Kong, academics and industry experts from China, Macau and Taiwan, and guest speakers from Switzerland and Canada. The slides of many of the presentations are available online. Apparently the level of sophistication in the academic research that is now starting to influence the legislative environment in Hong Kong and China is astonishing.

Trips like these are exhausting but invaluable - they allow us to see the PrivAsia work in action rather than hearing about it in emails and phone calls, and to discuss progress and problems face-to-face. Eric and Gus are already looking forward to Pakistan in April...

This blog post by Emma Draper was published on the Privacy International blog

Watch the video about contemporary privacy issues in India and Bangladesh below

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/privacy-internationals-trip-to-asia

The Centre for Internet & Society Joins the Global Network Initiative

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T09:13:50Z

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) is pleased to announce its newest member, the Centre for Internet & Society based in Bangalore, India. A technology policy research institute, CIS brings to GNI in-depth expertise on global Internet governance as well as online freedom of expression and privacy in India.

"We are delighted to add our first member based in India and welcome CIS’s engagement in support of transparency and accountability in technology," says GNI Executive Director Susan Morgan. "GNI's Principles for responsible company behavior apply globally, but require an appreciation of unique local contexts if they are to take hold. CIS will provide invaluable insight as we consider opportunities to work with India's burgeoning ICT industry."

"India’s ICT sector is one of the most dynamic worldwide, " says CIS Executive Director Sunil Abraham, "but rapid technological advances have raised anxieties around issues including hate speech, political criticism, and obscene content at a time when Indian institutions for the protection of free expression are under strain. We look forward to working with GNI's member organizations on these challenging issues."

CIS an independent, non-profit, research organization which is involved in research on the emerging field of the Internet and its relationship to the society, CIS brings together scholars, academics, students, programmers and scientists to engage in a large variety of Internet issues. CIS also runs different academic and research programs and is receptive to new ideas and collaborations, projects and campaigns for the public.

Leslie Harris, GNI Board Member and President and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology says: "The addition of CIS not only increases GNI’s global reach, it significantly enhances the initiative’s capacity around shared learning and policy engagement, not just in India, but on internet policy around the world."

Click to read the original published on the Global Network Initiative website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-joins-gni

The All India Privacy Symposium: Conference Report

natasha — 2012-04-30T05:16:41Z

Privacy India, the Centre for Internet and Society and Society in Action Group, with support from the International Development Research Centre, Privacy International and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative had organised the All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre in New Delhi, on February 4, 2012. Natasha Vaz reports about the event.

The symposium was organized around five thematic panel discussions:
Panel 1: Privacy and Transparency
Panel 2: Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives
Panel 3: Privacy and National Security
Panel 4: Privacy and Banking
Panel 5: Privacy and Health

Introduction

Elonnai Hickok (Policy Advocate, Privacy India) introduced the objectives of Privacy India. The primary objectives were to raise national awareness about privacy, do an in-depth study of privacy in India and provide feedback on the proposed ‘Right to Privacy’ Bill. Privacy India has reviewed case laws, legislations, including the upcoming policy and conducted state-level privacy workshops and consultations across India in Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Chennai, and Mumbai. India like the rest of the world is answering some fundamental questions about the powers of the government and citizen’s rights and complications that arise from emerging technologies. Through our research we have come to understand that privacy varies across cultures and contexts, and there is no one concept of privacy but instead several distinct core notions that serve as complex duties, claims and obligations.

Privacy and Transparency

Panelists: Ponnurangam K, (Assistant Professor, IIIT New Delhi), ), Chitra Ahanthem (Journalist, Imphal), Nikhil Dey (Social & Political Activist), Deepak Maheshwari (Director, Corporate Affairs, Microsoft), Gus Hosein (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), and Prashant Bhushan, (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India).
Moderator: Sunil Abraham (Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore)
Poster: Srishti Goyal (Law Student, NUJS)

Srishti Goyal provided the general contours, privacy protections, limits to privacy and loopholes of policy relating to transparency and privacy, specifically analyzing the Right to Information Act, Public Interest Disclosures Act, and the Official Secrets Act.

Nikhil Dey commented on the interaction between the right to privacy and the right to information (RTI). He referred to Gopal Gandhi, the former Governor of West Bengal, “we must ensure that tools like the UID must help the citizen watch every move of government; not allow the government watch every move of the citizen.” Currently, the RTI and the UID stand on contrary sides of the information debate. A privacy law could allow for a backdoor to curb RTI. So, utmost care has to be taken while drafting legislation with respect to right to privacy.

Data and information has leaked furiously in India and it has leaked to the powerful. A person who is in a position of power can access private information irrespective of any laws in place to safeguard privacy. It is necessary to look at the power dynamics, which exists in the society before formulating legislation on right to privacy. According to Nikhil Dey, there should be different standards of privacy with respect to public servants. A citizen should be entitled to information related to funds, functions and functionaries. The main problem arises while defining the private space of a public servant or functionaries.

The RTI Act has failed to address the legal protection for the right to privacy. Perhaps, rules regarding privacy can be added to the Act. It can be defined by answering the questions: (i) what is ‘personal information’? (ii) what is it’s relation to public activity or public interest? (iii) what is the unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual? and (iv) what is the larger public good? Expanding on these four points can provide greater legal protection for the right to privacy.

Gus Hosein described the intersection and interaction of the right to information and the right to privacy. He referred to a petition filed by Privacy International requesting information on the expenses of members of parliament. Privacy and transparency of the government are compatible in the public interest. Gross abuse of the public funds by MPs was revealed by this particular petition such as pornography or cleaning of moats of MPs homes. Privacy advocates are supporters of RTI, however, it cannot be denied that there is no tension between transparency and privacy. In order chalk out the differences, there is a need of a legal framework. According to Gus Hosein, in many countries the government office that deals with right to information also deals with cases related to right to privacy.

Mumbai and New Delhi police have started using social media very aggressively, encouraging citizens to take photographs of traffic violations and upload them to Facebook or Twitter. In reference to this, Ponnurangam described the perceptions of privacy and if it agreed or conflicted with his research findings. Ponnurangam has empirically explored the awareness and perspective of privacy in India with respect to other countries. He conducted a privacy survey in Hyderabad, Chennai and Mumbai. People are very comfortable in posting pictures of others committing a traffic violation or running a red light. Ironically, many people have posted pictures of police officers committing a traffic violation such as not wearing a helmet or running a red light.

Chitra Ahanthem described the barriers and challenges of using RTI in Manipur. There are more than 40 armed militia groups, which are banned by the central and state government. The central government provides economic packages for the development of the north-east region. However, the state government officials and armed groups pocket the economic packages. These armed groups have imposed a ban on RTI. Furthermore, Manipur is a very small community. If people try and access information through RTI they risk getting threatened by the Panchayat members and being ostracized from the community or their clan.

People are apprehensive about filing RTI because they believe that these procedures are costly and the police and government may also get involved. Officials use the privacy plea to avoid giving out information. Since certain information are private and not in the public domain, government officials, use the defense of privacy to hide information. In addition, the police brutality prevalent in the area deters people to even have interactions with government officials.

According to Deepak Maheshwari, the open data initiative is a subset within the larger context of open information. There is an onus on the government to publish information, which is in the public domain. As a result, one does not necessarily have to go through the entire process of filing an RTI to get information, which is already there in the public domain. Moreover, if it is freely available in public domain, then one can anonymously access such information; this further strengthens the privacy aspects of requesting information and facilitating anonymity with respect to access to such information in the public domain. It has also to be noted that it is not sufficient to put data out in the public domain but it should also disclose the basis of the data for example, if there is representation of a data on a pie chart, the data which was used to arrive at the pie chart should also be available in the public domain. The main intention of releasing data to the public domain or having open data standards should not only be to provide access to such data but also should be in such a fashion so as to enable people to use the data for multiple purposes.

Prashant Bhushan noted that one of the grounds for withholding information in the RTI Act is privacy. An RTI officer can disclose personal information if he feels that larger public interest warrants the disclosure, even if it is personal information, which has no relationship to public activity or interest. This raises the important question, “what constitutes personal information?” He referred to the Radia Tapes controversy. Ratan Tata has filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Nira Radia tapes contained personal information and that the release of these tapes into the public domain violated his privacy. The Centre for Public Interest Litigation has filed a counter petition on the grounds that the nature of the conversations was not personal but in relation to public activity. They were between a lobbyist and bureaucrats, journalists and ministers. Prashant Bhushan stressed the importance of releasing these tapes into the public domain to show glimpses of all kinds of fixing, deal-making and show how the whole ruling establishment functions. It is absurd for Ratan Tata to claim that this is an invasion of privacy. Lastly, he felt when drafting a privacy law, clearly defining and distinguishing personal information and public is extremely important.

One of the interesting comments made during the panel was on the assumption that data is transparent. Transparency can be staged; questions have to be asked around whether the word is itself transparent.

Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives

Panelists: Anant Maringanti, (Independent Social Researcher), Usha Ramanathan, (Advocate & Social Activist), Gus Hosein, (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), Apar Gupta, (Advocate, Supreme Court of India), and Elida Kristine Undrum Jacobsen (Doctoral Researcher, The Peace Research Institute Oslo).
Moderator: Sudhir Krishnaswamy (Centre for Law and Policy Research)
Poster: Adrija Das (Law Student, NUJS)

Adrija Das discussed the legal provision relating to identity projects and e-governance initiatives in India. The objective of any e-governance project is to increase efficiency and accessibility of public services. However, a major problem that arises is the linkage of the data results in the creation of a central database, accessible by every department of the government. Furthermore, implementing data protection and security standards are very expensive.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy highlighted the default assumptions surrounding e-governance initiatives: e-governance initiatives solve governance problems, increase efficiency, increase transparency and increase accountability. It is important to analyze the problems that arise from e-governance initiatives, such as privacy.

Usha Ramanathan described the increased number and vastness of e-governance initiatives such as UID, NPR, IT Rules and NATGRID. There are also many burdens on privacy that emanate from the introduction and existence of electronic data management systems. Electronic data management systems have allowed state to collect, store and use personal information of individual. Currently, the DNA Profiling Bill is pending before the Parliament. It is important to question the purpose and need for the government to collect such personal information. It is also to be noted that, there are certain laws such as Collection of Statistics Act, 2008 that penalize individuals if they do not comply with the information requests of the government.

Anant Maringanti discussed the limitations of data sharing that once existed. Currently, data can move across space in a very short time. He analyzed the state and market rationalities involved in e-governance initiatives, which raise the question “who can access data and at what price?”. Data may seem to be innocent or neutral, but data in the hands of wrong people becomes very crucial due to abuse and misuse. For example, Andhra Pradesh was praised as the model state for UID implementation. However, during the process of collecting data for UID a company bought personal information and sold the data to third parties.

Apar Gupta discussed the dilemmas of e-governance. Generally information in the form of an electronic record is presumed to be authentic. The data which government collects is most often inaccurate and wrong. So the digital identity of a person can be totally different from the real identity of that particular person. The process for correcting such information is also very inconvenient and sometimes impossible.
Under the evidence law any electronic evidence is presumed to be authentic and admissible as evidence. The Bombay High Court decided a case involving the authenticity of a telephone bill generated by a machine. The judgment said that since it is being generated by a machine, through and automated process, there is no need to challenge the authenticity of the document, it is presumed to true and authentic. The main danger in such case is that one does away with the process of law and attaches certain sanctity to the electronic record and evidence.

It should be also observed that how government maintains secrecy as to the ways in which it collects data. For example, the Election Commission has refused to disclose the functioning and design of electronic voting machines. The reason given for such secrecy is that if such information is put in the public domain then the electronic voting machines will be vulnerable and can be tampered with. But we, who use the voting machines, will never find out its vulnerabilities.

According to Gus Hosein, politicians generally have this wrong notion that technology can solve complex administrative problems. Furthermore, the industry is complicit; they indulge in anti-competitive market practice to sell these technologies as a solution to problems. However, such technology does not solve any problems rather it gives rise to problems.

Huge amount of government funds is associated with collection of personal data but such data is rendered useless or rather misused, because the government does not have clue as to how to use the data for development and security purposes. The UK National Health Records project estimated to cost around twelve to twenty billion pounds. However, a survey carried out by a professor in University College London showed that the hospital and other health institutions do not use the information collected by the National Health Records. Similarly, the UK Identity Card scheme was estimated to cost 1.3 billion pounds and finally it was estimated to cost five billion pounds. The identity cards are rendered obsolete, the sole department interested in the identity card was the Home Office Department, no other department intended on using it.

Technology should be built in such a manner that it empowers the individual. Technology should allow the individual to control his identity and as well as access all kinds of information available to the government and private bodies on that individual.

According to Elida Kristine Undrum Jacobsen, technology is regarded in this linear manner. It is increasingly being naturalized and as an all-encompassing solution. The use of biometric systems in the UID raises three areas of concern: power, value and social relationships.

With regards to power, there is a difference between providing documentation and information for identification. However, problems arise when the mode of identification becomes one’s body. It also leads to absolute reliance on technology, if the machine says that this is an individual’s identity then it is considered to be the absolute truth and it does not matter even if the individual is someone else. It becomes furthermore problematic with biometric system because it is generally used for forensic purposes.

The other component of UID or any national identification scheme is the question of consent and its relationship to privacy. In the case of UID project, people are totally unaware about how their information will be used and what purposes can it be used or misused for. Therefore, there is no informed consent when it comes to collection of biometric data under the UID project.

On the issue of social value it is to be noted that the value of efficiency becomes the most important value, which is valued. Many of the UIDAI documents state that the UID will provide a transactional identity. However, at the same time it takes away societal layers, which is inherently part of one’s identity. In addition, it makes it possible for the identity of a person to become a commodity to be sold. This also means that the personal information has economic value and players in the market such as insurance companies, banks can buy and sell the information.

When there is identification projects using biometrics it gives the State a lot of power; the power to determine and dictate one’s identity irrespective of the difference in real identity. Moreover, when such identifications projects are carried out at a national level it also gives rise to problem related to exclusion and inclusion of people or various purposes. The classification of the society based on various factors becomes easy and there is a huge risk involved with such classification.

The issues, which came out from the Q&A session, were:

The interplay between fairness and lawfulness in the context of privacy and data collection. There has to be a question asked as to why certain information is required by the State and how is it lawful.
In the neo-liberal era corporations are generally considered to be private. This has to be questioned and furthermore the difference between what is private and what is public. There are also concerns about corporations increasingly collaborating with the State. Can it be still considered as private?

Privacy and National Security

Panelists: PK Hormis Tharakan (Former Chief of Research and Analysis Wing, Government of India), Saikat Datta (Journalist), Menaka Guruswamy, (Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi), Prasanth Sugathan, (Legal Counsel, Software Freedom Law Center), and Oxblood Ruffin, (Cult of the Dead Cow Security and Publishing Collective).
Moderator: Danish Sheikh (Alternative Law Forum)
Poster: Suchitra Menon (Law Student, NUJS)

Suchitra Menon discussed the legal provisions for national security in relation to privacy. Specifically, she described the guidelines and procedural safeguards with respect to phone tapping and interception of communication decisional jurisprudence.

In the year 2000, the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000 was enacted, this Act had under section 69 allowed the State to monitor and intercept information through intermediaries. Prasanth Sugathan described how the government has been trying to bypass the procedural safeguard laid down by the Supreme Court in the PUCL case by using Section 28 of the IT Act, 2000. The provision deals with certifying authority for digital signatures. The certifying authority under the Act also has the authority to investigate offences under the Act. The provision mainly deals with digital signature but it is used by the government to intercept communication without implementing the procedural safeguards laid down for such interception. Furthermore, the IT Rules which was notified by the government in April, 2007 allows the government to intercept any communication with the help of the intermediaries. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was an after effect of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. The legislation has become draconian since then and privacy has been sacrificed to meet the ends of national security.

Oxblood Ruffin read out his speech and the same is reproduced below.

“The online citizenry of any country is part of its national security infrastructure. And the extent to which individual privacy rights are protected will determine whether democracy continues to succeed, or inches towards tyranny. The challenge then is to balance the legitimate needs of the state to secure its sovereignty with protecting its most valuable asset: The citizen.

It has become trite to say that 9/11 changed everything. Yet it is as true for the West as it is for the global South. 9/11 kick started the downward spiral of individual privacy rights across the entire internet. It also ushered in a false dichotomy of choice, that in choosing between security and privacy, it was privacy that had adapted to the new realities, or so we’ve been told.

Let’s examine some of the fallacies of this argument.

The false equation which many argue is that we must give up privacy to ensure security. But no one argues the opposite. We needn’t balance the costs of surveillance over privacy, because rarely banning a security measure protects privacy. Rather, protecting privacy typically means that government surveillance must be subjected to judicial oversight and justification of the need to surveillance. In most cases privacy protection will not diminish the state’s effectiveness to secure itself.

The deference argument is that security advocates insist that the courts should defer to elected officials when evaluating security measures. But when the judiciary weighs privacy against surveillance, privacy almost always loses. Unless the security measures are explored for efficacy they will win every time, especially when the word terrorism is invoked. The courts must take on a more active role to balance the interests of the state and its citizens.

For the war time argument security proponents argue that the war on terror requires greater security and less privacy. But this argument is backwards. During times of crisis the temptation is to make unnecessary sacrifices in the name of security. In the United States, for example, we saw that Japanese-American internment and the McCarthy-era witch-hunt for communists was in vain. The greatest challenge for safeguarding privacy comes during times when we are least inclined to protect it. We must be willing to be coldly rational and not emotional during such times.

We are often told that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. This is the most pervasive argument the average person hears. But isn’t privacy a little like being naked? We might not be ashamed of our bodies but we don’t walk around naked. Being online isn’t so different. Our virtual selves should be as covered as our real selves. It’s a form of personal sovereignty. Being seen should require our consent, just as in the real world. The state has no business taking up the role of Peeping Tom.

I firmly believe that the state has a right and a duty to secure itself. And I equally believe that its citizens are entitled to those same rights. Citizens are part of the national security infrastructure. They conduct business; they share information; they are the benefactors of democratic values. Privacy rights are what, amongst others, separate us from the rule of tyrants. To protect them is to protect and preserve democracy. It is a fight worth dying for, as so many have done before us.

PK Hormis Tharakan discussed the importance of interception communication in intelligence gathering. In the western liberal democracies, restrictions of privacy were introduced for the anti-terrorism campaigns and these measures are far restrictive than what the Indian legislations contemplate. Preventive intelligence is a major component in maintenance of national security and this intelligence is generated and can be procured through interception.

We do need laws to make sure that the power of interception is not excessive or out of proportion. But the graver issue is that the equipment used for interception of communication is freely available in the market at a cheap price. This allows private citizens also to snoop into others conversation. So, interception by civilians should be the main concern.

Menaka Guruswamy discussed the lack of regulation of Indian intelligence agencies that creates burdens on privacy. When there is a conflict between individual privacy and national security, the court will always rule in favour of the national security. Public interest always takes precedence over individual interest.

When there is a claim right to privacy vis-à-vis national security, generally these claims are characterized by dissent, chilling effects on freedom of expression and government accountability. In India, privacy is fragile and relatively a less justifiable right. Another challenge to privacy is that, when communication is intercepted, which part of the conversation can be considered to be private and which part cannot be considered so.

Saikat Datta described his experience of being under illegal surveillance by an unauthorized intelligence agency. When a person is under surveillance, he or she is already considered to be suspect. If the State commits any mistake as to surveillance, carrying surveillance, who is not at all a person of interest in such case upon discovery, there is no penalty for such discrepancy.
He warned of the dangers of excessive wiretapping, a practice that currently generates such a “mountain” of information that anything with real intelligence value tends to be ignored until it is too late, as happened with the Mumbai bombings in 2008. It is clear that the Indian government’s surveillance and interception programmes far exceed what is necessary for legitimate law enforcement.

The issues, which came during the Q&A session was:

In case of national security vis-à-vis privacy in heavily militarized zone, legislations such as Armed Forces Special Powers Act actually give authority to the army to search and seizure on mere suspicion? This amounts gross violation of privacy.

Privacy and Banking

Panelists: M R Umarji, (Chief Legal Advisor, Indian Banks Associations), N A Vijayashankar, (Cyber Law Expert), Malavika Jayaram, (Advocate, Bangalore)
Moderator: Prashant Iyengar (Associate Professor, Jindal Law University)
Poster: Malavika Chandu (Law Student, NUJS)

Prashant Iyengar highlighted how privacy has been a central feature in banking and finance. Even before the notion of privacy came into existence, banks had developed an evolved notion of secrecy and confidentiality, which was fairly robust. Every legislation dealing with banking and finance generally have a clause related to privacy and confidentiality. It might seem that it would be easy to implement privacy in banking and finance given the long relationship between banking and secrecy and confidentiality. However, this is not the case in the contemporary times. Specifically, with the growth in issues related to national security, transparency and technology, the highly regarded notion of privacy seems to be slowly depleting.

Malavika Chandu described the data protection standards that govern the banking industry. As part of the know-you-customer guidelines, banks are required to provide the Reserve Bank with customer profiles and other identification information. Lastly, she described case laws in relation to privacy with respect to financial records.

N A Vijayashankar noted that the confidentiality and secrecy practices in the banking sector emanate from the banker-customer relationship. In the present context, secrecy and privacy maintained by the banks should be analyzed from the perspective of the right of the customer to safeguard his or her information from any third party. Generally, banks and other financial institutions protect personal information as a fraud control measure and not as duty to protect the privacy of a customer.

There has been a paradigm shift in banking practices from traditional banking practices to more efficient but less secure banking practice. Some of the terms and conditions of internet banking are illegal and do not stand the test of law. In contemporary times, banking institutions use confidentiality to cover up problems and data breach rather than protecting the customer. But the banks are not ready to disclose data breach as it apprehends that it will result in public losing faith in the system. The Reserve Bank of India, has recently notified that protection which is provided to the customers in banking services should also be extended to e-banking services. However, the banks have not properly implemented this.

M R Umarji highlighted fourteen laws related to banking which carries confidentiality clauses. In India, public sector banks dominate the market. These banks are created under a statute and such statute governs them. Therefore, they are duty bound to maintain secrecy and confidentiality. Private banks and cooperative banks are not bound by any statute. They do not have any obligations to maintain secrecy, but they do strictly observe confidentiality as a form of banking practice.

Banks are not allowed to reveal any personal information of an individual unless it is sought by some authority that has a legitimate right to claim such information. There has been a constant erosion of confidentiality due to various laws which empowers authorities to seek confidential information from the banks. Recently, in the light of the growing national security concerns, banks also have an obligation to report suspicious transactions. These have caused heavy burdens on right to privacy of an individual.

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 public sector banks are considered to be public authorities. By the virtue of the Statute, any person can access information from banks. For example, in a recent case an information officer directed Reserve Bank of India, to disclose Inspection Reports. These reports generally contain information regarding doubtful accounts, non-performing account, etc. There is a need that banks should be exempted from the Right to Information Act, 2005. Since they are not dealing with public funds there is no need to apply transparency law to the banks.

Malavika Jayaram described the major conflicts and tensions with respect to privacy vis-à-vis banking and financial systems and financial data. Other privacy and transparency issues include: the publication of online tax information and income data.

Surveillance is built in the design of banking system, so it is capable of tracking personal information and activity. There is a need to implement more privacy friendly and privacy by design systems in the banking sector. Customers are generally ignorant about privacy policies and this influences informed consent and furthermore marketing institution may influence customers to behave in a particular manner. In this context privacy by design becomes very important.

Data minimization principles should be applied; since the more data collected the more there is a risk of data breach and misuse. In case of data retention it is necessary that person giving such data should know how much proportion of the data is being retained and for how long it is stored and also what is the scope of the data and for what purpose will it be used.

Personal information and data, which was previously collected by the government, are gradually being outsourced to private bodies. On one hand it is a good thing that private sector get their technology and security measures right as compared to the government agencies but it comes with the risk that it can be sold out by private bodies as commodities in the market. Private bodies that are harvesting the data can also be forced by the government to disclose it under a particular law or statute without taking into consideration the consent of the individual whose personal information is sought for.

There is multiplicity of documentation for identification, which makes transactions less efficient. This has attracted customers to more convenient systems such as one-access point systems, but people tend to forget the issues related to privacy, in using such a system. What is portrayed as efficient for the consumer is a tool for social control and who has access and authority to use such information.

Often the reason given for collecting information is that it will help the service provider to combat fraud. However, studies have shown people more often fake situation rather than identity. The other concerns are that of sharing of information and lack of choice with respect to such sharing. There should be check as to sharing of personal information as the data belongs to the individual and not the bank or any other institution which requires furnishing personal information in lieu of services. This gives rise to a binary choice to the user; either the individual has to provide information to avail the service or else one cannot avail the services.

There is supposed to be market for privacy. The notion of personal information is subjective and varies from person to person. For example, one might be comfortable to share certain information. However, others might not be.

The issues that came out of the Q&A sessions are:

The default settings are generally put at the low protection settings. Unless the user is aware of the privacy protection setting, he or she is prone to breach of privacy. Should the default privacy setting be set to maximum security and option can be given to the user to change it according to his or her preference?
Is there any system in the banks, which allows the customers of bank to know about which all third parties the bank has shared his or her personal information with?

Health Privacy

Panelists: K. K. Abraham, (President, Indian Network for People with HIV), Dr. B. S. Bedi, (Advisor, CDAC & Media Lab Asia), and Raman Chawla, (Senior Advocacy Officer, Lawyers Collective).
Moderator: Ashok Row Kavi (Journalist and LGBT Activist)
Poster: Danish Sheikh (Researcher, Alternative Law Forum)

Danish Sheikh outlined the possible health privacy violations. These included the disclosure of personal health information to third parties without consent, inadequate notification to a patient of a data breach, the purpose of collecting data is not specified and improper security standards, storage and disposal. The disclosure of personal health information has the potential to be embarrassing, stigmatizing or discriminatory.

Subsequently, Danish Sheikh examined the status of sexual minorities’ vis-à-vis the privacy framework. Culling out some real life examples based on various studies, media reports and judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Delhi and Allahabad, he also described privacy violations committed by both individuals as well as state authorities.

Ashok Row Kavi recounted how privacy was very contextual when debating section 377 in the LGBT community. The paradigm upon which they were going to fight the anti-sodomy law was that it was consenting sex between two adults in private space. However, this paradigm was not well received by women, as women did not see private space as safe space, due to domestic violence. Perceptions of privacy are very subjective and it differs from person to person.

Raman Chawla recounted the history of the Draft HIV/AIDS Bill. In 2002, the need for law related to HIV/AIDS was realized in order to protect right to consent, right against discrimination and right to confidentiality of HIV patients. The bill was finalized in the year 2006. Alarmingly, it is yet to be tabled before the Parliament.

The privacy provisions in the HIV bill clearly state that no person can be tested, treated or researched for HIV without the consent of the patient. It also casts that in a fiduciary relationship the health care provider must maintain confidentiality, however if the patient provides written consent then their status may be disclosed. The HIV condition of the patient can also revealed by the doctor if there is a court order demanding such disclosure. The doctor may disclose the status of the patient to his or her partner but he has to follow a particular protocol. The doctor should have sufficient belief that his or her partner is at risk of contracting HIV. The person who is infected will be asked for his/her views and counseled before his/her partner is informed. However, there are doubts as to the implementation and enforcement of this protocol.

Conclusion

Natasha Vaz (Policy Advocate, Privacy India) brought the symposium to a close by thanking the partners, the panelists, the moderators and the participants for their sincere efforts in making the All India Privacy Symposium a grand success. In India, a public discussion regarding privacy has been long over due. The symposium provided a platform for dialogue and building greater awareness around privacy issues in health, banking, national security, transparency and e-governance. Using our research, expert opinions, personal experiences, questions and comments various facets of privacy were explored.

Press Coverage

The event was featured in the media as well:

India needs an independent privacy law, says NGO Privacy India, Economic Times, February 2, 2012
New Bill to decide on individual’s right to privacy, Tehelka, February 6, 2012
Lack of strong privacy law in healthcare a big worry, Daily News & Analysis, February 13, 2012
Privacy concerns grow in India, Washington Post, February 3, 2012

Click to download the Agenda and Profile of Speakers (PDF, 1642 Kb)

Download the PDF (555 Kb)
Follow the webcast of the event

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/all-india-privacy-delhi-report

The High Level Privacy Conclave — Conference Report

natasha — 2012-04-30T09:46:12Z

Privacy India, the Centre for Internet and Society and the Society in Action Group, with support from IDRC and Privacy International, have spent 18 months studying the state of privacy in India, and conducting consultations across India in Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Chennai, and Mumbai. On February 3, 2012, a high-level conclave was held in New Delhi with representatives from government, industry, media, and civil society participating in the event. At the conclave the discussions were focused on Internet Privacy, National Security & Privacy, and the future of Privacy in India.

Rajan Gandhi, CEO, Society in Action Group, opened the conference with an explanation of the mandate of Privacy India, which is to raise awareness, spark civil action, and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. He raised the question of whether Indians are concerned about privacy, while citing examples of banking institutions and telecom service providers, who ask for information more than required, such as marital status, financial status, etc. Lastly, he stressed the need for legislation and awareness about right to privacy.

Panel 1: National Security and Privacy

Malavika Jayaram (Advocate, Bangalore) moderated the first panel discussion on “National Security and Privacy”. The panel comprised of Manish Tewari (Member of Parliament, Ludhiana), PK Hormis Tharakan (Former Chief of Research and Analysis Wing, Government of India), Gus Hosein (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), Vakul Sharma (Advocate, Supreme Court), Eric King (Human Rights and Technology Advisor, Privacy International, UK), Amol Sharma (Journalist, Wall Street Journal).

Malavika Jayaram started the discussion by posing the question as to what in their view is ‘national security’ and when can it be cited by the government to intrude upon our privacy? In response, the panel gave multiple views while agreeing that it is an abstract term. Gus Hosein, in response said that national security does not only mean protecting the national border of a nation, but also protecting the rights of the citizen. He also noted that national security is always implemented in a top-down manner. Thus, unfortunately national security has become the stick, which is used to beat down on people’s right.
PK Hormis Tharakan defined national security as the security of people and property. National security includes all the efforts of the government to raise poor above the poverty line. He also stated that anything that hinders the process of alleviating poverty is a matter of ‘national security’.

Manish Tewari stated that there is a need for legislation to address the various issues of violation of privacy. Specifically, he addressed the need of an independent oversight committee to put a check on the unrestricted powers of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the practice of intercepting communications on the grounds of national security. He pointed out that the rules, formulated by the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India on interception of communication, are rarely implemented, and the guidelines are implemented more as an exception rather than a rule. The interception of communication by intelligence agencies should be regulated for a larger national interest.

Manish Tewari also observed that there is a nationwide lack of understanding about new technologies and judges are very rarely technologically literate. This has created a situation in which the government's efforts to fight crime and terrorism by intercepting communications has horribly backfired. By building backdoors into communications systems to allow lawful access, and by restricting cryptography to a 40-bit limit, the authorities have created serious vulnerabilities in India's communications system that can be easily exploited by any malicious third party or foreign government.

Privacy Protection

The panel discussion then moved on to the various tools for protecting privacy such data encryption. Amol Sharma referred to the process followed in the USA for interception of communication. Surveillance in the United States can be carried out by government agencies only on the basis of a court order or a warrant. He noted that in the US regime there is at least an independent body that gives orders of interception of communication. In comparison, in India, the power to authorize wiretaps lies with the government.

Amol Sharma also pointed out that, there are at least 5000-7000 interception requests from the government, out of which only three to five per cent requests for interception of communication are for white-collar crime. He cited the example of the government asking Research in Motion to provide their encryption keys and also provide a room in their offices for the purpose of interception of communication. He stated that he was very skeptic that terrorists will be using Blackberry services for communication, considering that there are many more convenient and untraceable means available to them such as Skype. He asserted that there is need of legislation for regulation and restricting invasion of privacy. He said, “National security is not a free ticket for any kind of wiretap”.

Concerns about Third Party Intrusion

Eric King noted that national security exists so that individuals can protect themselves from any kind of intrusion. Interception of communication is not only limited to government, equipment for interception of mobile phone calls are easily available and also affordable. So any individual can intercept calls. The notion that interception is only limited to the state is not true, it can be carried out by individuals as well. Heavily criticizing the restriction on encryption in India, he said that the people should be given the power to protect their own privacy. He also harped on the possibility that not only citizens are at risk also government high officials and military personnel can be targeted due to the low level of encryption.

Contributing to the conversation, Manish Tewari pointed out that while trying to intercept the mobile phone calls of an individual, the State could listen in to anyone’s conversation within the vicinity; hence there are gross privacy violations.

Gus Hosein added that the problem lies at a more basic level. Governments generally order telecom companies to build back door for the purposes of interception. These vulnerabilities in the system are not only used by the government, but also may be misused by third parties. He cited an incident in Greece, where the government asked a telecom service provider to build backdoors into the system. A third party was able to access the back door, during the Athens Olympics, when security was of utmost importance. He also said, “If you build a system that allows the state to listen in to communications, you build national security vulnerability”. This was followed by a Question & Answer session. The issues raised during the Q&A session were:

Nature of consent given by the user to the telecom service provider. Taking into consideration that service providers have a duty to disclose the user data to the government on request. A situation which gives rise to a binary choice, either use the services or do not use it at all.
At the wake of breaches in cyber-security, the use of general consumer e-mails by high government officials causes serious threat to nation’s security.
Lack of technical know-how among the government officials.
If government is inept in handling technology, then are there any concerns about public private partnership and outsourcing of governmental duties. (For example, UID).
Collection and collation of information by organizations such as NATGRID. Are they vulnerable to misuse?

In the concluding statement of the first panel discussion, Gus Hosein, made the argument that there cannot be a balance between right to privacy and national security, as the former is an individual right and the latter a community right. Community interest will always take precedence over individual right. National security is always the excuse given by government for invading individual privacy.

Panel 2: Internet and Privacy

Sunil Abraham (Executive Director, The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore) moderated the second panel discussion on “Internet and Privacy”. The panel comprised of Deepak Maheshwari (Director, Corporate Affairs, Microsoft), Amitabh Das (General Counsel, Yahoo! India), Ramanjit Singh Chima (Sr. Policy Analyst, Google), Talish Ray (Board Member, Software Freedom Law Center), and Vinayak Godse (Director- Data Protection, DSCI).

Defining Privacy

Sunil Abraham asked the panel questions with respect to defining privacy in the context of physical privacy and spatial privacy. In response, Amitabh Das said that the right to privacy of individuals should be protected in a similar fashion online, as it is protected offline. Referring to safeguards under PUCL v. Union of India (SC, 1996), he observed that communication and behavior on the Internet should be free from monitoring and interception. The procedural safeguards offline should be also present online.

Key Escrow Regime

Deepak Maheshwari talked about the inconsistencies in the encryption standards in India. For example, in case of ISP licensees, there is a 40-bit restriction (symmetric key). In case of adopting higher-level encryption, the ISP has to take permission from the government and deposit both the keys to the government.

He also pointed that online railway ticket booking services use 128-bit encryption. RBI mandates 128-bit encryption for online banking transaction. SBI recommends 64-128 bit encryption. The multiple regulations make it impossible to abide by the rules.

Anonymity and Pseudonymity

Sunil Abraham, while setting the context to India, where the government has taken stringent measures to cut down on anonymity and pseudonymity, asked the question whether such a step is welcomed by the internet users as well as intermediaries. Ramanjit Singh Chima, in reply said that for any business, it is necessary to give what the user wants. Real identity provides a better platform for discussion. He also discussed the choices provided by Google, mainly search without login, encrypted searches so it gives the user to be anonymous. He also noted that there are legal as well as technical restraints as to anonymity on the Internet. He also cited the example of Korea, where the government mandated real name verification process for posting comments on the Internet. Google was not able to comply with this request and had to disable comment section in Korea.

Data Privacy

Vinayak Godse analyzed the issue of data privacy in detail. He stressed upon the need of data privacy law in the country for the outsourcing industries. The European Union (EU) data protection laws govern most of the clients of firms that outsource. EU considers India is not a data safe country due to lack of data privacy legislation. He suggested that the data privacy law should be pragmatic, light touch and should allow industry self-regulation.

Conclusion

The High Level Privacy Conclave discussed various issues related to Internet and privacy and national security and privacy. The various concerns raised by the stakeholders were helpful in understanding the problems related to privacy. The main concerns raised by the first panel were about the interaction and relation of national security to privacy. The major concerns around national security and privacy were of data encryption vis-à-vis surveillance by the State and third party intrusion. There was also an attempt made to understand and define national security in the context of its ambit and when can it be used by the State to access private information. The second panel discussed various aspects of privacy on the Internet. The panel included discussions on anonymity and data privacy on the Internet.

We thank the moderators, panelists and participants for making High Level Privacy a constructive and a fruitful session on privacy and it also gave us insight to understand the problems related privacy and a way forward for possible solutions.

Download the PDF (195 Kb)

Click for the agenda and speakers profile.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/high-level-privacy-report

Braitenberg Cybernetic Vehicles: Workshop, Film Screening & Discussion

praskrishna — 2012-07-30T13:13:31Z

The Metaculture Media Lab at the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore is organizing a fun event, next Saturday, April 14, 2012. The event will begin at 2.30 p.m. and will end at 6.00 p.m.

A tentative schedule of the event in three parts:

A short presentation about Braitenberg Vehicles :
It is based on a thought experiment by Italian cyberneticist, in his book : ''Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology'' where 'vehicles' with simple sensorimotor capabilites display interesting life-like behaviour WITHOUT the need for internal memory, representation of the environment, or inference. (Basically none of the task based hyper robotic coding/processing) Read more about it here on the wiki page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle
This will be followed by a quick Hands-on-proactive-workshop, where we will build some simple Braitenberg Vehicles, using common motors, wheels, and light sensors, and watch them interact and play with each other.
- The Technically inclined might ( Well If you don't know electronics, the block digram will be self explanatory anyway) have fun teaching eachother how to couple motors with light sensors. Designers can also contribute to the interaction paradigm/visuals. While others may chill in the shady part of the lawn with juice, until the vehicle action starts)
Finally, a film screening followed by a short discussion about it , revisiting our ideas about robots, autonomous vehicles, transport, society and policy, possibly moderated by volunteers/students/citizen researchers in this field, in a dialogue with the rest of the audience.

Additionally , if anyone want to build their own vehicles to take home, please email yelena@cis-india.org (by April 10) for instructions on what to pick up from SP Road.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cybernetic-vehicles

A beauty’s blog creates furore

praskrishna — 2012-04-11T03:50:47Z

Her first Tamil poetry anthology Otraiyilaiyena (As a single leaf) saw three editions and the second one Ulagin Azhagiya Muthal Penn (The first beautiful woman in the world) invited mixed reactions like Iyal Poetry Award and a call for a ban by Hindu Makkal Katchi. Parathaiyarul Raani (Queen of sluts) her third collection was a reaction to all the moral policing.

Lakshmi Krupa's article was published in Deccan Chronicle on April 10, 2012

While her film Sengadal The Dead Sea was stopped from being screened to the public, until the Supreme Court’s Appellate tribunal intervened with regional censor board for the film clearance, groups like the Makkal Kalai Ilakiya Kazhagam attacked her beliefs. Adding to this list is the latest revelation that the Principal Secretary of IT Department of the Tamil Nadu government requested that her blog be blocked along with a host of others.

In a text sent from A.K. Kaushik, Additional Director & CPIO Cyber Laws & E-Security in response to an RTI petition on Website Blocking, it was reported that Leena’s blog http://ulaginazhagiyamuthalpenn.blogspot.com was requested to be blocked on 21.07.2010 by the Principal Secretary, IT Department.

This recent revelation has led to an outrage over the fact that artists and activists like Leena have had to constantly knock on the doors of the legal system to exercise the most basic of their rights. In an interview from London where she is currently the Charles Wallace Visiting Scholar at the University of London, Leena says, “Center for Internet and Society in Bengaluru that works towards upholding Civil Liberties Online, had obtained a list of all websites that were sought to be blocked by Governmental authorities with the use of Right to Information Act.

They sent me all the details on how my blog was one amongst them as the Principal Secretary, IT Department, Govt of TN had asked for it to be blocked. As the Internet’s role in free speech becomes increasingly prevalent, tactics to control the Internet are growing more refined each year. Methods of accessing private data and censoring content vary between countries, but all maintain an element of oppression. We, who are concerned about civil liberties should wake up to the secret missions of our government on Internet Censorship and protect freedom of speech online.”

Leena’s blog has been in the center of controversies before too. “Hindu Makkal Katchi, the right wing moral police lodged a police complaint to ban my poetry collections and ban my blog ulaginazhagiyamuthalpenn. blogspot.com. They went to every possible media house and were making threat calls and there were discussions on the alleged obscenity in my poems. They even wanted the Iyal International Poetry Prize and Sirpi Literary Awards to be revoked.”

Leena’s poetry challenges fanatic minds. “My poetry has a feminist agenda and it is just not about equal rights for women. It is a socialist, anti-institutional political movement which calls for women to break the code, destroy capitalism, live their sexuality and witch hunt every possible patriarchal design. I am not amused about the fact that my poetry gave jitters to ultra blasphemous right and left wingers,” she concludes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/beauty-blog-creates-furore

Konkan Corridor Project — A Lecture by Vasant Gangavane

praskrishna — 2012-04-13T13:49:32Z

Well known social worker Vasant Gangavane will be giving a public lecture on the Konkan Corridor Project at Ashoka Innovators for the Public in Bangalore on April 16, 2012. The lecture will focus on the role of Information & Communication Technology for total rural transformation by inclusive integrated development with no change of land ownerships. The event is co-organized by Ashoka Innovators for the Public and the Centre for Internet and Society.

Citing examples from the 117 village clusters in the regions of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurga districts of Maharashtra the lecture hopes to throw light on questions like what is a village cluster, what does it mean to urbanize one village cluster and what do we need to do to urbanize one village cluster, how will we organize and coordinate the project. This apart the vision, status and action plans of the Konkan Corridor Project, the skills development in each cluster, intensive agriculture in each cluster, farm produce processing, water conservation in the project area, rivers in the project area, energy, transportation, industry, science communication, and self administration in each clusters will also be discussed.

Vasant Gangavane

In the 1970s Vasant Gangavane, a management graduate from Indian Institute of Management and Wharton, returned to his village in Konkan, Maharashtra, to give his people what he felt they needed most — the knowledge to manage their natural resources. In the process, he set up several models of rural development. Gangavane found that the rate at which people migrated out of the Konkan was very high, despite the fact that the area was rich in natural resources. He studied the area and realised that land improvement and watershed development were key issues. He conducted a series of experiments in agriculture, dairy and poultry farming before setting up the Gokul Prakalp Pratishthan (GPP) in 1978. With the Maharashtra government's comprehensive watershed management programme (COWDEP), Gangavane's Pratishthan afforested 400 hectares of land in Vilye village with mango and cashew trees. Gangavane then acquired 40 acres of wasteland in the village and built water conservation structures called Gokul bandharas. This resulted in the wells in the area being recharged and ensured enough drinking water for 25 families.This model was later adopted by the Indo-German Watershed Programme.

When Gangavane's project began, the village of Vilye was bereft of young people. Its young had migrated. Now there is reverse migration and 3,000 people have benefited from the programme. The village has been transformed — water runoff has been arrested and afforestation has changed the look of the village.

After the watershed programme, Gangavane formulated a theoretical plan for model villages called the Gokul project. The aim was communication and knowledgesharing. A participatory rural appraisal is also done to explore natural resource availability, potential and use. The awareness is meant to empower people and convince them that watershed programmes can address problems of poverty and inequity. Gangavane believes that with this knowledge, and with the resources available, a small family in the area can live sustainably.

Gangavane's Pratishthan has set up an Ashramshaala at Laanja, Ratnagiri district, which is a tribal residential school, where 300 children are provided free boarding and lodging up to the secondary level. GPP has also introduced computer education in schools. For his work Gangavane was awarded the Vanashree award, Vasantrao Naik Pratisthan award and the Indira Priyadarshini Vrikshamitra award.

Download the presentation here [PDF, 228 KB]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/talk-by-vasant-gangavane